PCIT-1, NEW DELHI vs. BEAM GLOBAL SPIRITS & WINE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

17 of 38 one of the deemed international transactions listed under the Explanation to section 92B of the Act”. 12. In order to enable Mr. Gupta, learned counsel, to address submissions in the aforesaid light, let the appeal be called again on 25.02.2025 as part heard in the category of “End of Board”.” 4. As was noted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBC WORLD INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee and the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

D E R PER BENCH 1. This is the bunch of 11 appeals and cross objections by the parties in case of one Assessee , appellant/respondent involving similar issue and therefore they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. ITA number 996/del/2011 and CO number 315/del/2011 assessment year 2002 – 03 2. ITA number 996/del/2011 is filed

LI & FUNG INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the order dated 25/11/11 of the ITAT Tribunal, Delhi Branch

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

17. It was next urged that the said method of assessment undertaken for determining the arm‟s length price of international transactions applying TNMM was accepted in the Transfer Pricing assessment consistently year after year. The TPO, in the previous years, did not dispute the functional analysis taken by LFIL and the factors determining LFIL‟s operations, the functions performed

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

17. Now, we come to ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee where the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has proposed adjustment to the international transaction of „provision of business support services‟ of Rs. 10731404/– is under challenge. The assessee has entered into international transaction of provision of business support services amounting to Rs. 117787979/– and applied the „Cost

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

17. Now, we come to ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee where the learned Transfer Pricing Officer has proposed adjustment to the international transaction of „provision of business support services‟ of Rs. 10731404/– is under challenge. The assessee has entered into international transaction of provision of business support services amounting to Rs. 117787979/– and applied the „Cost

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

section 92C on the basis of such material or informaction or document available with him. After the Transfer Pricing Officer determines the arm’s length price, it is incumbent upon him to send a copy of the order to the assessing officer and to the assessee. In the present case what has happened is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAI M/s. S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. that in view of the transfer pricing guidelines issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.3/2003 the Tribunal was right in observing that by not making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer had breached the mandatory

M/S ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

D cost incurred by the group. 6. On reference to the Ld. transfer pricing officer. He accepted the method chosen by the assessee and the choice of the profit level indicator. On a fresh search conducted by the Ld. transfer pricing officer 3 companies were selected from the database as comparables out of which it rejected the 2 companies

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred only to boost profitability and cash flow of appellant. (d) Valuation Report of INMAC is not reliable 10. That on the facts and in law to the extent the orders passed by both AO and CIT(A) are prejudicial to the interest of the assesse the same are bad in law and void ab-initio. 3. The revenue

LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section I4A.” 15. Now, we first take up the transfer pricing issue. The first ground of appeal is against action of the lower authorities disregarding and ignoring comparable uncontrolled price submitted for international transactions pertaining to purchase of machinery of Rs.40,55,59,818/-. 18 ITA No.1482/Del./2015 16. The brief facts of this issue are that for the purpose

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee i.e. DCM Sriram Ltd (the appellant/assessee) against the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, special range – 3, New Delhi (the learned AO) u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144 (C) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 31/10/2018

CIT vs. CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

17 (b) Any information and document relating to an international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 92-D (1) and the rules made in that regard; or (c) The information or data used in computation of the arm’s length price is not reliable or correct; or (d

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibg Exploration & Production Jcit, India Ltd, International Taxation, Bg House, Dehradun Vs. Lake Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Bg Exploration & Production International Taxation, India Ltd, Bg House, Lake Dehradun Boulevard Road, Hiranandani Vs. Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Pan: Aaace4569K (Appellant) (Respondent)

17 December 2014 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel B G Exploration & Production India Limited V DCIT ITA No 1170/Del/2015 DCIT V B G Exploration & Production India Limited ITA No 1581/Del/2015 AY 2010-11 ('DRP') under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the following among other grounds. “Ground No. 1: Provision of support services

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 14 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Circle-16(2) 3Rd Floor, Block-Iii, Vatika Business Park, New Delhi Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm2356G (Appellant) (Respondent)

5. Assessee‟s services are governed by the Master service agreement dated 1/4/2010 with its AE/ Parent company where in assessee is responsible for providing services of research and Information and IT Support services at remuneration of cost + 15 %. 6. For its research and information services of Rs. 1788476202/–, assessee selected 18 comparables whose average of adjusted operating margins

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

5) and (8) of section 80 IA of theAct. 12.8 That the Ld. AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in proposing alternate computation mechanisms (particularly in paras B-1, B-2 and D of the impugned order) to arrive at the profits eligible for deduction under section 80-IB and section 80-IC of the Act, disregarding the method

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

5 of the Act, the law has made a two- fold characterisation, viz. income accruing or arising. But while dealing with benefit in the nature of income in the context of section 28, law has conspicuously omitted the concept of "accruing" and has prescribed only "arising". "Benefit arising" implies benefit arising in the previous year. In other words